Categories

Furadan in Kenya

Martin Odino

and

Darcy L. Ogada

Zoology Department

Ornithology Section

National Museums of Kenya

January 2008

Introduction

Furadan, also known as carbofuran, (2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethylbenzofuran-7-yl methylcarbamate) is the most toxic of the carbamate pesticides (Harrison 2006). It is an insecticide and a nematicide which is used to control insects in a wide variety of field crops, including rice, bananas, beans, pyrethrum, vegetables, pineapples, maize and coffee (M. Davidson unpub. report). Furadan is commonly used in Kenya (D. Ogada pers obs) although its adverse effects on wildlife, particularly birds have been a concern amongst ornithologists since the mid-1990’s (O. Nasirwa pers. comm.). Further, recent reports of misuse, particularly in resolving issues of human-wildlife conflict have alerted local conservation professionals to a potentially widespread problem targeting Kenya’s wildlife resources.

Background

Carbofuran is a systemic pesticide, which means that it is absorbed through plants’ roots and distributed throughout its organs (mainly vessels, stems and leaves; not the fruits), where insecticidal concentrations are attained (Harrison 2006). It has the highest acute toxicity to humans of any insecticide widely used on field crops. Toxic effects are due to its activity as a cholinesterase inhibitor (it is thus considered a neurotoxin pesticide) (Harrison 2006). Symptoms include twitching, trembling, paralyzed breathing, convulsions and finally death. Exposure is by ingestion, inhalation or contact (Maina 2007a). Two groups of neurotoxic pesticides, the organophosphorous (e.g. DDT) and carbamate (e.g. carbofuran) compounds tend to be very acutely toxic to birds and cases of mortality are frequently reported (e.g. Mineau et al. 1999).

Although carbofuran comes in both liquid and granular form, only the granular form is registered for sale in Kenya (M. Davidson unpub. report). The granular form is particularly attractive to seed-eating birds, which often eat numerous grains of the pesticide, mistaking them for seeds, and then die shortly thereafter (Harrison 2006)[D.O.1] . Before it was banned in the United States in 2006, granular carbofuran was blamed for millions of bird deaths per year (Defenders of Wildlife 2006).

Outside of the U.S., 17 Eurasian Griffon vultures in Croatia were recently poisoned with Furadan meant to kill wild boars that were destroying crops (Muzinic 2007). In Uganda, there have been alarming reports of large-scale poisonings of predators in Queen Elizabeth National Park during the past 15 months. Predators including lions, leopards and hyenas have been targeted by pastoralists who were ‘temporarily settled’ along the parks’ northern edges. The parks’ lion population has plummeted from 94 animals in 1999 to 39 today. Most of the leopards along the Nyamusagani River have been poisoned and an estimated 80% of the parks’ hyenas have been killed. Autopsies on three hyena carcasses confirmed the animals were poisoned using Furadan. Other known casualties from secondary poisoning include cattle egrets and Marabou storks (Maina 2007b).

The misuse of Furadan in Kenya was first documented by ornithologists in the mid-1990’s when the chemical was being used to kill huge numbers ducks and other waterfowl near Ahero (Western Kenya) and Mwea (Central Kenya) rice schemes. Poisoned waterfowl were then sold for human consumption. Discussions ensued between ornithologists from National Museums of Kenya (NMK), KWS representatives, the manufacturer of Furadan (FMC Corp), local manufacturers (AgroEvo E.A. Limited), regulatory authority (Pest Control Products Board), and the National Irrigation Board (NIB) who managed the rice schemes. As a result of two stakeholder meetings the following actions were recommended (NMK, Ornithology Section unpub. meeting minutes).

FMC Nairobi agreed to contact their R&D Department at Headquarters to get them to do their best to develop a bird repellent formulation, a three-year time frame was requested

FMC and AgrEvo agreed to redouble their information and promotion campaigns to try to ensure that farmers exercised due care when using Furadan.

NIB was to inform that no Furadan was to be released to persons other than their own applicator specialists.

A public awareness campaign to be launched to advertise that human consumption of birds killed by poisoning could be seriously detrimental to health

KWS were to be charged with job of prosecuting individuals found baiting wildfowl and selling poisoned birds in markets or to hotels.

An information packet to be passed to local administration for assistance in disseminating information in affected areas

Task force set up to implement and monitor actions

A further meeting on Furadan was convened in September 2000 by Bruno Bernos, Regional Manager of FMC. At the meeting the following recommendations and actions were noted (NMK, Ornithology Section unpub. meeting minutes).

FMC wanted proof (i.e. research) to be done to establish that non-grain feeders like storks, ibis and spoonbills also die of Furadan poisoning

FMC very concerned about loss of birds but feels that withdrawal of Furadan will open up market to cheaper and more lethal pesticides from un-environmentally friendly sources

About 200 tons of Carbofuran with 5% concentration level imported to Kenya annually. Of these 80 tons are from un-established sources.

Following meetings held in 1996, attempts to change and make the product unpalatable to birds failed.

FMC will liase with other multinational companies to seek a solution

FMC will provide information on the effect of Furadan in Asia

Despite these initial efforts made to curb the abuse of Furadan in Kenya, little action has been taken on the ground and widespread abuse continues. Recently there have been a number of reports, both anecdotal and laboratory tested, of large carnivores and raptors being poisoned using the chemical, mainly as a result of human-wildlife conflict. In most of these cases, raptors (e.g. vultures) were incidentally poisoned by consuming animal carcasses laced with Furadan meant to kill large carnivores (e.g. lions) that had recently killed livestock.

In November 2007, near Lewa Wildlife Conservancy, Isiolo District a camel that had been killed by lions was subsequently laced with Furadan by local pastoralists with the aim of killing predators that came to feast on the carcass. The result was the death of at least two lions and fifteen vultures collected in the immediate vicinity of the carcass (I. Craig pers. comm.). Also recently near Lewa, a group of nine lions from the nearby Samburu reserve were poisoned, five of which died along with significant numbers of birds of prey and other scavengers (I. Craig pers. comm.).

In April 2005 the poisoning of at least 30 vultures occurred near Athi River (S. Thomsett pers. comm.).

In March 2005 a breeding Mackinder’s eagle owl was a victim of secondary poisoning after eating dying mousebirds that were poisoned with Furadan by farmers near Mweiga, Nyeri District (P. Muriithi pers comm.).

In April 2004 the largest known incident of vulture deaths in Kenya occurred near Athi River when 187 vultures died as a result of Furadan poisoning. The hardest hit species were white-backed vultures, but Ruppell’s griffon and lappet-faced vultures also perished. A large portion of the resident hyena population was also wiped out (S. Thomsett pers. comm.).

Further, an MSc student working on his analytical project on effects of Furadan, analyzed samples collected from the feet of a dead vulture in Laikipia and found Furadan compound (Otieno pers comm. 2007); a likely case of secondary poisoning.

This kind of mass die-off of raptors as a result of poisoning has been witnessed in several parts of Kenya before, and conservationists are concerned that this is having devastating effects on raptor populations, as well as other carnivores, throughout the country (Ettinger 2007). There can be little doubt that these reported incidences represent just the tip of the iceberg, as the majority of cases of poisoning go unreported and the numbers of dead wildlife observed on the ground will be a fraction of those that actually perish.

Aim

This report is based on a two-month survey aimed at understanding the use of the pesticide Furadan in Kenya. Specifically this report aimed to collect information on the regulation, sale and use of Furadan from government agencies, distributors and farmers or other end-users and to assess the impacts of Furadan use on birds and other wildlife.

Objectives

1. To determine the extent of Furadan use in randomly selected survey sites

2. To establish and document if cases of Furadan misuse exist in surveyed sites

3. To collect information on the national legislative policies that dictate the use and regulation of Furadan in Kenya

Methods

1. Questionnaires

Three kinds of questionnaires were designed and used for different respondent groups:

a) Legislation questionnaire – directed at Pest Control Products Board (PCPB) and aimed at understanding the agencies’ role in the regulation of Furadan. Specifically, to obtain instructions regarding Furadan use, to determine the source of Furadan in Kenya, identify licensed distributors, to understand the agencies’ role in cases of misuse and to identify possible alternative pesticides

b) Distributor questionnaire – directed at agro-vet stores to understand the supply-side of Furadan. In particular, the cost and amount of daily sales of a packet of Furadan, alternatives to Furadan, what farmers are using Furadan for and why they prefer it to other pesticides.

c) Farmer/user questionnaire – directed at farmers or other end-users to determine the amount of Furadan use, what farmers are using it for, how often they use it and its effectiveness. Also, to determine what, if anything, they do with the carcasses of birds or mammals killed using Furadan.

2. Interviews

Respondents were approached by M. Odino, who first identified himself as an intern from National Museums of Kenya, Ornithology Section, and asked if they would agree to be interviewed for a report concerning the use of Furadan. Interviews were open-ended and based on responses initially provided from questionnaires. During interviews, further probing was used to obtain detailed information that often was not captured using the more structured questionnaires. Both questionnaire and interview methods were used concurrently

These methods were used to solicit information from the national legislative authority on pesticide distribution and use, otherwise known as PCPB and at four randomly selected distribution and corresponding immediate-use farmland sites. The four distribution and corresponding usage sites were:

A total of 74 people or agencies were approached to fill a questionnaire. Results were based on 34 fully completed questionnaires in selected sites and one government agency. Total questionnaires per site are summarized in the table below. Numbers in parentheses indicate number of people approached for an interview. Non-compliance for ‘agro-vets’ was a result of refusing to fill a questionnaire. Non-compliance for ‘neighbouring farmland’ was farmers who responded they did not know about Furadan.

Site

Total questionnaires filled

Total

Nairobi town & Kikuyu

15 (25)

1 (7)

16

Machakos town & farmlands

5 (5)

2 (7)

7

Kisii town & farmlands

2 (3)

1 (24)

3

Naivasha town & farmlands

5 (5)

2 (2)

7

Legislative organization

Total questionnaires filled

Pest Control Products Board

1

1

Total

34

Results of Furadan Distribution/Supply

Results of distribution of Furadan from four visited sites show 100% availability of the insecticide in all the agro-vet shops. Furadan is packaged in a range of quantities from 200 g packets up to 25 kg. These cost Ksh. 100 – 120 for the 200 g packs, whereas the 25 kg package costs between Ksh. 7000 – 8250. This is in granular form.

The amount of Furadan sold varied from one supplier to another. The common aspect was that all suppliers sold the insecticide all days their shops were open and admitted that it was very unlikely to close a day without selling it. Peak Furadan sale is however during the planting season. On average, the lowest sale reported was two 200 g packs a day whereas the highest was 60 kgs. This largest sale was in Nairobi.

Most suppliers acknowledged the fact that there are alternatives to Furadan and that these are less harmful. The most widely noted was Mocap. Suppliers said this is more expensive but is more effective as a pesticide but not as well known as Furadan. One agro-vet was selling 200 g packets of Mocap for Ksh. 130 compared to Ksh. 100 for Furadan. Others mentioned include Termidor, Gladiator, Confidor, Root Guard, Achook, and Regent 5G. There were single cases in Nairobi and Kisii, where suppliers were not aware of alternatives to Furadan.

Unanimously, suppliers disclosed that Furadan is the most preferred pesticide by farmers. This is primarily because it is the best-known pesticide of recent times. Its strengths that make it even more preferred in order of supremacy include its renowned effective killing power to termites and other insects, as well as nematodes. It is also cheap, dissolves easily and has long-lasting effects.

Responses on use and abuse of the pesticide were varied. Suppliers explained proper use of the pesticide was important and said they handled possible situations of misuse based on the information provided by the users/farmers. They admitted however that there were cases where purchasers asked for the pesticide for use contrary to the manufacturers’ instructions. In Kisii and Naivasha, distributors said they did not know of cases of abuse of the chemical. So was the case for two respondents in Machakos. Five distributors, all from Nairobi admitted cases of abuse by farmers. These are; use of the pesticide as a rodenticide, dog/hyena/lion poison (generally killing carnivores by pastoralist communities), cat poison, crocodile baits, killing bees and killing ‘nuisance’ birds namely vultures, eagles and ravens.

Results of Furadan Use by Farmers

Furadan use was reported by six respondents: One in Kisii, one in Kikuyu, two in Machakos and two in Naivasha. In Kisii, an elderly woman disclosed having used the pesticide to poison her dog that had turned wild. She was however ignorant of the name and the cost of the chemical. She only identified it after she examined the contents of a sample shown to her. Understandably therefore, she did not even know the proper use of the pesticide. The two respondents in Machakos confessed to using the drug to kill squirrels, which were a nuisance especially to their tubers. The respondent from Kikuyu only identified the compound as rat poison.

The respondents in Naivasha were farmhands from the flower farms but were not willing to specify which flower farm employed them. They said there was extensive use of the pesticide mostly against termites in the farms. They were not certain of the amount and frequency of Furadan use but since the chemical is effective, use was not so frequent, but at least every planting season the pesticide was applied. They also said it would be brought into the farms in a lorry where a quarter of the load would be Furadan. Zealously, they disclosed that this pesticide was very effective. According to them they did not know of an alternative to Furadan and the pesticide was extremely reliable. They said there were no cases of vertebrates that died where Furadan was the direct causative. However, one respondent noted that there were times when there would be massive cases of rodent mortality. In most cases these would not be disposed of at all because ‘who cares anyway’.

Results of Legislative Control of the Distribution and Use of Furadan

An employee at the Pest Control Products Board wrote responses after giving them a copy of our questionnaire. This agency declined our request for an interview.

The agency’s role regarding regulation of Carbofuran, is as ascribed in the Pest Control Products Acts. The respondent further stated that it is in line with PCPB’s vision and mission statement and includes:

Assessing the safety, efficacy, quality, merit, and economic value of pest control products with a view to registering them if found suitable.

Assessing suitability of premises used for manufacture/formulation, re-packing, storage and distribution of pest control products for purposes of licensing them for those functions.

Processing and issuing import/export permits to ensure that only registered products are imported and in right quantities.

Advising the Minister on all matters relating to the Provisions of the PCP Act and Regulations made there under.

Monitoring and ensuring adherence of quality standards of pest control products from production to use.

Creating awareness of the general public on all aspects of safety, storage, handling, disposal and use of pest control products.

Investigating and prosecuting contravention of the Pest Control Products Act.

Supervising the disposal of obsolete or undesired pest control products.

The legislative authority’s representative on legality of the pesticide’s use in Kenya documented that all products registered for use in Kenya are available in the book ‘Pest Control Products Registered for use in Kenya – 4th Edition’ which is available in their offices at a cost of Ksh. 1,000 or on their website.

The respondent disclosed that carbofuran (Furadan) is manufactured abroad. According to the Pest Control Products (Registration) Regulations, an applicant who is not resident in Kenya shall appoint an agent permanently resident in Kenya to handle matters of registration. The list of registered products mentioned in the book ‘Pest Control Products Registered for use in Kenya – 4th Edition’ lists every product with its manufacturer, agent and distributor.

As to which country supplies the Kenyan market, who are the licensed distributors, and if there are any safe alternatives to the pesticide and which ones these are, the above-mentioned book was referred to as the ultimate guide to all the answers to these questions.

In response to the question whether there were any plans to ban Furadan as had recently happened in the U.S., the respondent stated that according to the Pest Control Products (Registration) Regulations 11 (1) (b), the Board may revoke a certificate of registration issued under these regulations if new information becomes available to the Board which renders the Pest Control Product unsafe or dangerous.

In response to regulations regarding the use of Furadan in Kenya and if these instructions are supplied to farmers, reference was made to the Subsidiary Legislation of the Pest Control Products Act Cap 346 of 1984 and 2006. The respondent added that instructions on use of any pest control product are provided on the secondary display panel of labels.

Finally, the respondent documented that there was no misuse of pest control products (uses outside the registered uses) and that these are prohibited in the Pest Control Products Act. The same he added is summarized on the label under ‘notice to user’.

Discussion

This study reveals that Furadan is a well-known pesticide amongst the distributors and farmers, and to all, the pesticide is undoubtedly of important commercial significance. For this reason, they dread losing it. The local distribution source as disclosed by two middlemen/agro-vet suppliers is JUANCO Chemicals. Mocap, a new competitor is supposedly a better, less-poisonous substitute to carbofuran. Though the most advocated pesticide after Furadan, it is by far less known to farmers hence less preferred by them. In addition, the pesticide is expensive compared to carbofuran.

Based on our small-scale survey, Furadan appears to be widely distributed and intensively used rather than extensively used. This is in the sense that from the four surveyed sites all distributors stocked the pesticide. Amongst the farmers in the supposed corresponding catchment areas to these agro-vets, the confirmed users were dismally represented judging from the mega-supply of the pesticide surrounding them. At least ten farmers were approached per site and asked if they knew of the pesticide. Only six, or 15% of farmers had knowledge of the pesticide and positively identified it. Of these six, mostly small-scale subsistence farmers, none directly purchased the pesticide. In Kisii, the elderly respondent was given the chemical by her son who was working in Kilgoris. The other two respondents in Naivasha only knew of it from procedural applications that they participated in on the farms where they are employed. Two other farmers in Machakos were given Furadan from undisclosed sources, while the one in Kikuyu said he found it in an old package, which another person might have purchased. To him, it was rat poison.

Yet large-scale stocking by agro-vet stores cannot exist for nothing. Secondary information actually reveals thus. The legislative board representative hypothesized from experience that the most likely abusers would be the ‘Elite Farmers’. By this he meant the professional commercial farmer is the likely subject of the pesticide’s misuse. This is because they know about the lethal properties of the chemical. Therefore if a phenomenon deemed a nuisance turned up, then for efficiency, Furadan would be an effective solution. Distributors noted the case of rodent population explosions, especially when cereals are in season. Targeted rodents include rats, mice, squirrels and moles. In addition, baiting of carnivores with Furadan-poisoned meat occurs more so amongst pastoral communities. North-Eastern province was mentioned by several distributors in Machakos and Nairobi, as a place where the chemical is used to poison hyenas and lions. This was seconded by the recent findings in coastal Kenya in November 2007, where farmers are using Furadan to poison hyenas against their livestock at Dakatcha Woodlands near Malindi (F. Ngweno pers. comm.). The case of poisoning stray dogs using Furadan was also mentioned by various distributors, seconded by the elderly woman’s poisoning of her sick dog in Kisii. Direct poisoning of waterbirds for subsistence in Mwea and Bunyala Irrigation schemes was also reported. This was also documented in the Daily Nation, whereby villagers poisoned birds, mostly pigeons and doves, in Bunyala Irrigation Scheme, Budalang’i to sell at nearby markets at Ksh. 10 for human consumption (Kamau 2005). Given the toxicity of Furadan, and its lethal effects even to humans, the gravity of this situation from a human health standpoint is nothing short of alarming and exposes the complete lack of knowledge amongst end-users concerning the regulations regarding of the safe use of Furadan.

Birds of prey otherwise termed ‘nuisance birds’ were also quoted by distributors as ‘pests’ targeted by farmers. The distributors did not specify a locality but one respondent disclosed during a phone conversation as having used this method to destroy some Kites in Busia. He admitted that the chemical he used he got from what was provided for routine application at the Bunyala Rice Irrigation scheme where he does manual work. He realized the chemical works on the grebes and wild ducks and thought it should work for the raptors that routinely depopulate his chicken stocks every time a new clutch of chicks hatches. He said this was a better method compared to climbing up ‘Goshawks’ nests to smother the contents using hot ashes.

The National Pest Product Legislative Force, under PCPB is cautious in dealing with the topic of Furadan. Cordial conversation with an expert at PCPB revealed the potential danger of pesticide/chemical succession, i.e. if Furadan were removed from the market would another potentially more dangerous pesticide take its place. According to the PCPB specialist, Furadan is amongst the chemicals that saw the successful phasing out of DDT. Obviously any group advocating for the ban of carbofuran must carefully consider the impacts of alternative pesticides on human and wildlife resources. Apparently the PCPB lack raw data on abuse of the compound and offered cooperation if we proved that Furadan abuse is actually happening on the ground. Further, the PCPB respondent purported that carbofuran is categorized as a highly restricted pesticide. This would accord the chemical the same handling regulations as Strychnine. Strychnine can only be accessed and administered by instructions from District Veterinary Officers. Carbofuran is a readily available, easily acquired pesticide. From observation at agro-vet stores that were visited, the pesticide is shelved at an easy to reach shelf. M. Odino purchased a 200 g package of the pesticide without any special commendation from the District Veterinary Officer. Well, this implies, if carbofuran is a highly restricted pesticide, then the rules concerning its acquisition and use are not being followed.

Carbofuran, a documented threat to Kenya’s avian fauna and other wildlife has been shown to thrive in its intended use and efficacy, is an economic boon amongst agro-vet distributors and the regulatory agency, Pest Control Products Board claims cases of misuse do not exist. The ultimate fate of our internationally-known, rich diversity of avian fauna and other wildlife therefore lies at a crossroads and will only be determined by collective stakeholders (conservationists, farmers, distributors and pest products legislators) cooperation in deciding on necessary actions to protect Kenya’s natural resources. We however all ascribe to one common aspect: ENSURING PRESERVATION OF HUMAN AND OTHER LIVELIHOODS. We therefore should bear this in mind while acknowledging that raptors (and all birds generally) are INDICATORS OF THE HEALTH OF OUR SURROUNDINGS. Their demise means something is amiss in the environment and therefore other livelihoods, man’s inclusive is in danger.

Conclusion

Furadan is universally stocked in all agro-vets including those in rural areas where the farmers may not even know of the product. All visited distributors have an array of different-sized packages of the chemical compound ready for sale and at affordable rates with the smallest costing Ksh. 100.

Based on our limited findings, Furadan is intensively used and extensively abused. According to our interviews the pesticide is used by some farmers rather than all farmers, is widely abused amongst pastoralist communities and large-scale commercial farming enterprises. Forms of abuse mentioned in regards to this chemical range from poisoning bees, rodents, birds, carnivores and even crocodiles. It is also being used to kill birds for human consumption. Thus the magnitude of misinterpretation of the intended use of this chemical has corrupted the title of Furadan as an insecticide and nematicide.

Furadan abuse is apparently little- known by the rural legislative authorities; in particular, the Pest Control Products Board. This local pesticide regulatory agency claimed to be totally unaware of any forms of abuse of Furadan as stated in response to our questionnaire. The respondent denied any form of abuse attributed to this pesticide. Questionnaire responses from suppliers and farmers however showed otherwise.

Furadan abuse can be partially attributed to ignorance amongst the distributors and the end-users/farmers. Two agro-vet distributors stated that the pesticide could be used on vegetables and any other crop. This is incorrect even as per the manufacturer’s instructions which state that use on food crops should be limited to those that will not be harvested until at least 6 months post-application. Amongst the interviewed users, three of the respondents did not know anything about the pesticide and referred to it as rat and dog poison. Further, everyone seemed ignorant of the nutrient cycle and the possibility that when the pesticide is taken up in food and may end up cycling back to humanity. Therefore, excellent agricultural productivity and economic affluence not withstanding, the effects of this pesticide could have severe consequences for ecosystems in the long run. It is therefore only reasonable at this stage to enlighten everybody on the chemical effects of this pesticide and its potency as a lethal agent to life.

Recommendations

Furadan surveys should be extended to the areas disclosed by this study and any other areas where Furadan abuse is thought to be rampant. North Eastern Province, some areas in the Coast Province and Rift Valley (Kilgoris and Laikipia for example) for instance. In particular, pastoralist areas would yield the actual situation on the ground.

Consider creation of awareness to enlighten persons who are using and/or abusing Furadan without the knowledge of what Furadan is, what it is meant for and its potency, having already been quoted the most lethal chemical compound of our time for birds.

Urgently address issues raised in this report with the Pest Control Products Board as they are the agency charged with regulating Furadan use in Kenya.

Convene a meeting between representatives of relevant stakeholders to address the current threat of the continued misuse of Furadan and to jointly recommend initiatives to curb further destruction of wildlife and other natural resources in Kenya.

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the Bird Committee of the East Africa Natural History Society. We thank the farmers and distributors who took their time to give the interviews that form the basis of this report.

Have you ever considered writing an ebook or guest authoring on other blogs?
I have a blog centered on the same subjects you discuss and would
love to have you share some stories/information.
I know my visitors would appreciate your work.

Do you mind if I quote a few of your blog posts as long as I provide credit and sources back to your weblog: http://stopwildlifepoisoning.
wildlifedirect.org/furadan-in-kenya/. Please let
me know if this is okay with you. Thanks alot

[…] who are consuming marijuana from these sites are smoking Furadan, which the Huffington Post and other environmentalists worry about in Africa, but not in […]

Post a Comment

Name*

Email*

Website

Comment

CAPTCHA Code *

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page.Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.

WildlifeDirect is separately registered in the US (501-(c)3 not for profit) and Kenya (not for profit), aimed at helping endangered animals worldwide. No administration fee is taken for the funds that are transferred through us so that the financial support, net only of bank fees, can go where it was intended in its entirety.

WildlifeDirect ensures that 100% of your financial support (net of bank transfer fees) reaches your intended purpose.
Thank you for your support towards the core costs of WildlifeDirect.